On 07/21/2016 03:03 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:32:26AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On 07/20/2016 08:44 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
While processing delayed refs, we may update block group's statistics
and attach it to cur_trans->dirty_bgs, and later writing dirty block
groups will process the list, which happens during
btrfs_commit_transaction().
For whatever reason, the transaction is aborted and dirty_bgs
is not processed in cleanup_transaction(), we end up with memory leak
of these dirty block group cache.
Since btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups() doesn't make it go to the commit
critical section, this also adds the cleanup work inside it.
It's the start_drity_block_groups() hunt that worries me a bit:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 50bd683..7a35c9d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3698,6 +3698,8 @@ again:
goto again;
}
spin_unlock(&cur_trans->dirty_bgs_lock);
+ } else if (ret < 0) {
+ btrfs_cleanup_dirty_bgs(cur_trans, root);
}
btrfs_free_path(path);
We have checks in here to make sure only one process runs
btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups() but that doesn't mean that only one process
its messing around with the cache inode. Is there any reason we can't let
this cleanup wait for the cleanup_transaction code?
btrfs_run_delayed_refs() already aborts when it fails.
update_block_group() is the only producer to add block group cache to
dirty_bgs list, and if btrfs_run_delayed_refs() aborts, the transaction
is aborted, so seems that there won't be anyone manipulating dirty_bgs
list, am I missing?
No, the dirty_bgs processing is safe I think. My concern is with the
cache inode which we iput()
Another point is that when we fail on btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups(),
btrfs_commit_transaction() won't get to cleanup_transaction error
handling,
Right, because we don't actually finish the commit. Someone will
eventually though ;)
btrfs_commit_transaction() {
...
if (!test_bit(BTRFS_TRANS_DIRTY_BG_RUN, &cur_trans->flags)) {
...
ret = btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups(trans, root);
}
if (ret) {
btrfs_end_transaction(trans, root);
return ret;
}
...
cleanup_transaction();
}
But yes, if we delay the cleanup, we still have a chance to do cleanup
in btrfs_error_commit_super(), and I have sent another patch to add
several ASSERT()s to check block group related memory leak, with which
we'll be warned if anything wrong.
I'm OK to remove the part that causes concerns.
Thanks.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
